Can we void our board protection?

I suspect that the answer will be no, on at least an efficiency basis, so i’ll say in advance that I don’t have any intent to complain or nag if this isn’t acceptable.

Can we voluntarily give up what protections we have on a personal basis? For example, we aren’t allowed to call others posters liars in GD, or to tell them to fuck off in the Pit. If I wanted to, could I voluntarily withdraw from that protection? That is, could I make it clear I don’t mind being called a liar, or being told to fuck off, and in such a way make it so that a poster doing either of those things not be in trouble for doing so?

Interesting proposition. I’ll leave it open for discussion before we make a ruling, but I suspect the answer will be no for at least the following reasons:

a. keeping track of who waived which rule, then comparing each violation against the list each time
b. even if we could easily keep track, this could create confusion for other users, especially newbies.
c. even if a. and b. weren’t an issue, there’s still the issue of “Does the board want its members to behave in X manner, even if they are consenting adults”, kinda like S&M couples willing to indulge in activities that may lead to injury or death.

I think it could be solved procedurally, just add something like the following to the bottom of your posts:

To use one of my patented Prepared Responses™, just say “RaftPeople, response #_

  1. You sir, are a liar
  2. Fuck off
  3. I’m going to gut you
  4. Great post, totally agree (but I’m still going to gut you)

As I recall Ed’s reasons for cleaning up the language had less to do with the personal feelings of individual members than with the overall image the board presents.

make the Pit members-only, unmoderated*, and hidden from search engines; make it clear that by posting in the Pit you’re giving up any protections otherwise found on this internet.

  • posts that fall under the “illegal” or “threats” rules would still have to be moderated, I imagine

I think that any wars that started in The BBQ Pit would almost have to spill over into the other forums if we did that. At best-we would have a shitload of “My response is here” links, and at worst (even more) people would be unable to act civil outside of The Pit after participating in a all-out war there.

I think these two problems could be to an extent solved by applying a modified version of RaftPeople’s tongue-in-cheek idea. If you want certain rules not to apply against you, you could have a certain signifier in your signature (or title, which would probably be better, but seems more unlikely). Then in the rules, just add a line after the appropriate rules which state that it doesn’t apply to insults against posters with that signifier.

This problem I can’t really see a way around, however. Of course i’d argue that that behaviour is already not covered under the current rules, but that’s another argument entirely. :wink:

Conceptually, I think we want a board where we have interesting discussions, in a reasonably civil manner. And I don’t see any plus in having two classes of citizens: those whom it is OK to insult to their face, and those whom it is not. Seems artificial, awkward, and difficult to enforce.

(Please note, under the scenario as I understand it, if you gave permission, then I could insult you all I want; but I did not give permission, so you could not insult me back? Seems… awkward. Confusing. And I dislike the idea of dealing with a REPORT that says, “I called So-and-So a fuckin’ liar, and then he said I was rude, so please give him a Warning since I didn’t sign for personal insults.” Seems hypocritical. And open to abuse.)

It’s an interesting thought. But I think it’s ultimately impractical.

I suppose really the plus is just the idea that if protection limits freedom, but that the protection is in some cases warranted, some people could let it be known they willingly give up that protection in order for others to have more freedom. Very loose, wishy-washy terms, i’ll admit.

Yes, that’s the idea.

But the hypocrisy is on the behalf of the abusers, not the protection-free, in this instance. If I say I don’t mind insults, but someone who doesn’t want to give up that protection themselves insults me, then certainly it’s hypocrisy, but i’m not the hypocritical one. Besides, hypocrisy isn’t against the rules, nor does it seem to be frowned upon by anything other than social conventions.

And certainly it’s open to abuse. But it’s a volunteer system, so essentially you’re opening yourself up to abuse, which doesn’t seem like a huge problem.

Thanks for the responses so far, everyone. I’ll certainly admit there’s problems with it, so this going nowhere would not be a surprise, but thanks for the respect for the idea.

The board could let us choose between a number of avatars, representing our tolerance for attacks and predilection towards aggressiveness. Since there would be a small number of relevant avatars, it shouldn’t tax the server too much. Enforcement would work via the honor system.


Such experimentation seems more appropriate for a satellite board in my view.